Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Gupta Textile Industries Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the Applicant No. 1 and 2 (Director of the Applicant No. 1) respectively, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Surat. Penalties have been imposed on the ground that Applicant No. 1, who is a 100% EOU, had procured grey fabrics but not accounted for them in their statutory records and used them in the manufacture of goods which the Director has admitted, were going to be clandestinely removed.2. The contention of the applicants that the goods were meant for export and therefore question of intention to evade payment of duty giving rise to penal action does not arise, is prima facie not acceptable as even in the case of goods meant for export accountal is called for under the relevant rules. Further we note that there are several statements of the Director of the applicant unit admitting that the grey fabrics were unaccounted and was to be used in the m...

Kejriwal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Adjudication), Mumbai, who in the impugned order imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act on various persons/companies/firms concerned with diversion of imported goods cleared duty free.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Baroda Synthetics Ltd. (BSL) cleared 320.819 MT of polyester filament yam (PFY) duty free under DEEC scheme. M/s. BSL purchased the said quantity from M/s.Ramgopal Polytex Ltd., M/s. Ramgopal Textiles Ltd., M/s. Krystal Yarn Processors and M/s. Asima Denim International, on high seat-sale and cleared the goods through customs. Investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence allegedly revealed that M/s. BSL diverted the imported goods into domestic tariff area without fulfilling the export obligation thus rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The consignment was handled by M/s. Shree Ganesh Shipping Services...

Bhagwati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR690

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule, By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16-12-1992, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department as well as the order dated 11-2-1993 by the Collector for Mumbai Suburban District and seek consequential reliefs consequent to quashing of the said orders.3. The dispute between the parties relate to a plot bearing No. 35A, situate at Santacruz, Mumbai, hereinafter called as 'the said plot'. The undisputed facts in the matter are that the petitioner-society had applied for grant of plots for the construction of residential buildings to accommodate their members and accordingly the Additional Collector of Bombay Suburban District had, by his order dated 1-2-1967, granted six plots bearing Nos. 34A, 34B, 34-C, 35A, 35B and 35C of the layout approved by the Town Planning Department from TPS VI, Santacruz P28 Nos. 18 and 19 of Andheri Taluka, Bom...

Hardasmal S/O Hiranand Gurnani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR495; 2004(1)MhLj908

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. The substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is: Whether the rice mill purchased by the appellant is immovable property or movable property2. On 27-10-1994 the appellant purchased the entire immovable property comprising the rice mill and the machineries under two different sale deeds. On the same day, an immovable property comprising of land, building, shed, etc. was purchased for consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- while plant, machineries consisting of rice mill, rollers, paddy cleaner, three cama polishers, separators, electric motors, etc. were purchased for Rs. 7,00,000/-. On the purchase of machineries, the appellant paid stamp duty of Rs. 21,000/- at 3% under Article 25(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. According to the appellant, the plant and machinery being an immovable property, the stamp duty at the rate of 3% under Article 25(a) was the proper duty payable. This is the only property in dispute. There is no dispute about the immovable pr...

Chandrashekhar Narayan Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj929

D. D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.2. Criminal Revision Application is directed against the impugned order, dated 1-4-2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Wardha, below Exhibits-7 and 14 in Special Case No. 27 of 1995, whereby the application moved by the applicant for discharge from the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is rejected.The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows :--3. The applicant-accused Chandrashekhar was working as a Deputy Manager in Bank of India, Branch at Wardha. The prosecutrix Meerabai was working as a Sweeper-cum-Peon. Oft 9th September, 1993, the applicant-accused Chandrashekhar was alone in the office. At that time, prosecutrix Meerabai was standing along at the main gate of the Bank hall. The accused then called her and scolded her for not cleaning his tab...

Versova Gurudutt Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Divisional Join ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR1; 2004(1)MhLj1118

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None present for the respondent No. 3, though served.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 13-8-2001, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners for execution of the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner-society in relation to the alleged arrears pertaining to the service charges payable to the respondent No. 3. The challenge is three fold. Firstly, that the appellate authority rejected the objections without even holding the necessary inquiry as is otherwise required to be held in terms of the provisions of law, more particularly those contained in Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, hereinafter called as 'the said Rules', Secondly, that the appellate authority failed to take note of the fact that the claim for arrears is on the basis of the resolutions of the responde...

Sanju @ Sanjay Patangrao Jagtap Vs. the State of Maharashtra (at the I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1102

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties at length.The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2001 wherein he has convicted the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 376(f) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo further RI for three months.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.2.2001 victim Sushma, a girl of five years old had gone to Balwadi - school at about 11.00 a.m. and her mother Sunita Bhoite had brought her to her house at about 2.00 pm. She ate some food and then went outside for playing and at that time Sunita was washing the clothes in the house. Sushma was playing with Roopali Mohan Mane, another, girl, in the Court yard. After sometime, said Roopali Mane came inside the house of Sunita and told her that Sushma slept in the nearby t...

National Federation of Telecom Employees B.S.N.L. Union Vs. Chief Gene ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ588Bom

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Federation of Telecom Employees of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, functioning in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 at Telecom Factory. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the respondent No. 3 refusing to refer the industrial dispute raised by the, petitioner for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I. D. Act). The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the respondent No. 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the same be quashed and set aside and the dispute be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act.2. Since the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner concerns a large number of employees of the establishment of the respondent No. 1 and since it only relates to simple demand of the workmen represented by the petitioner that they have raised an industrial ...

Cott Beverage Inc., a Georgia Corporation Vs. Silvassa Bottling Compan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR440; 2004(4)BomCR256; 2004(29)PTC679(Bom)

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. The appellant-original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003 in the District Court at Silvassa against the respondent original defendant Silvassa Bottling Company. In the said suit the plaintiff claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from infringing its trade mark and for other consequential reliefs.3. Initially, on April 29, 2003 the District Court Silvassa passed an ex parte order of interim injunction against the respondent in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) and the respondents were restrained from using the impugned trade mark. The said order was served on the respondent. The application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5 ) was heard by the District Court and the same was dismissed by judgment and order dated June 27, 2003. The appellants have preferred an appeal from that order. Thereafter, matter appea...

Essenjay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The facts of the case are that M/s. Eastern Engineering Co., imported a consignment of four packages declared to contain Tool Room Precision Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 40/78 Cus dt.1.3.78 in terms of entry at serial No. 2 of the Notification which covered a "Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring Machine with or without numerical control". The benefit of the notification was denied on the ground that the goods did not satisfy the description as set out above. The differential duty demand was raised on the importers and penalty was imposed upon them. In addition thereto a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed upon indenting agents M/s.Essenjay Marketing Pvt.Ltd.; hence these appeals.2. At the outset, it is brought to our notice that the importers have opted to settle the case under the protection of the KVSS Scheme. Hence appeal of M/s. Eastern Engineering Co., the importers herein (Appeal No. C/1813/94...